|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:literally fake news Tbf, it does specify that Clinton moved to the left of Obama on race-related issues, which is something one could argue. It probably energized a lot of white racists to vote for Trump. The problem with JC's argument is that there isn't much evidence that this is what decisively caused those strategically vital former-Obama-voting blue collar white workers to leave the Democratic Party for Trump.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:I don’t think any rust belt worker was thinking about anything other than how they were going they were going to pay their bills for that month. They might even sometimes wonder about why things went south (literally) over the last three decades. Trump had a coherent message for them. Hillary did not. Trump’s, or even Hillary’s, views on race was at the bottom of their respective priority lists. Groups like BLM remained largely ignored except when they forcibly seized the stage. Majorian posted:It didn't have to be anything Obama did in particular that caused them to abandon the Democrats in 2016; there was plenty that Obama didn't do to offer them relief, and there was even more that Hillary failed to do and say in courting their vote. When we study Trump voters who previously supported Obama, what do we find? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/former-obama-voters-now-supporting-trump-why quote:North’s extremist views are the exception, and the number of former Obama voters who now support Trump is small. Though few polls have touched on this overlap, a March survey by the non-partisan RAND Corporation found that 7.9 percent of Trump supporters voted for Obama in 2012, while a May ABC News poll put the same group at 15 percent. Doesnt seem to have much to do with economic anxiety.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:When we study Trump voters who previously supported Obama, what do we find? What you're citing as evidence is a TPM piece, from June 2016, about an American Renaissance conference taking place in Tennessee (which is a pretty self-selecting group), which exclusively uses anecdotal evidence in place of data. I'm not entirely sure why you think this backs up your argument that racial resentment was what dislodged almost 25% of white blue collar workers in the Rust Belt from the Obama coalition. e: As for Pollard's study, it does not differentiate between Obama defectors living in the Rust Belt states flipped by Trump, versus Obama defectors in other states. This is not really much of a boon to your argument. e2: Also lol: quote:By contrast, college-educated white women currently back Clinton by 24 points, 57-33 percent. I think this probably isn't a very good source of data for your argument dude. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Tbf, it does specify that Clinton moved to the left of Obama on race-related issues, which is something one could argue. It probably energized a lot of white racists to vote for Trump. The problem with JC's argument is that there isn't much evidence that this is what decisively caused those strategically vital former-Obama-voting blue collar white workers to leave the Democratic Party for Trump. There’s no 11 dimensional chess going on that allows Rustbelt voters voted for Obama because he would galvanize the racists and then turn around and vote for Trump for the same reasons. A far more probable cause is that the extremely wealthy and liberal elite were asleep at the wheel. Quite frankly these voters can easily be won back, if you are willing to have them again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:There’s no 11 dimensional chess going on that allows Rustbelt voters voted for Obama because he would galvanize the racists and then turn around and vote for Trump for the same reasons. A far more probable cause is that the extremely wealthy and liberal elite were asleep at the wheel. Oh, I agree - I don't think Clinton being more left-wing than Obama on racial issues was what sank her in those key strategic areas. I can just understand why people would think she moved to the left of Obama on that axis. quote:Quite frankly these voters can easily be won back, if you are willing to have them again. Absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
America is Already Great Because America is Good
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:America is Already Great Because America is Good America is sadly, not good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
"America is already great!" has to go down as an amazing example of political incompetence. Not only was it a lame way to cry "hey I'm here too!" and piggyback on Trump's slogan but it totally showed she misunderstood the mood of the country. It also was lame transparent jingoism that anyone could see though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Radish posted:"America is already great!" has to go down as an amazing example of political incompetence. Not only was it a lame way to cry "hey I'm here too!" and piggyback on Trump's slogan but it totally showed she misunderstood the mood of the country. It also was lame transparent jingoism that anyone could see though. I mean, the big problem with it was that it was a perfectly fine slogan for energizing people in states that were already firmly in Clinton's column. The Clinton campaign made the remarkably stupid assumption that, because the super-populous states were behind her at record levels, the Blue Wall must be as well.  Unfortunately, California doesn't decide elections. New York doesn't decide elections (neither, for that matter, does Texas). loving Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin decide elections.
Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, the big problem with it was that it was a perfectly fine slogan for energizing people in states that were already firmly in Clinton's column. The Clinton campaign made the remarkably stupid assumption that, because the super-populous states were behind her at record levels, the Blue Wall must be as well. Hmm let's see which message resonated in the area during the Democratic primary...  The following is for JC's eyes only: Bernard Sanders Would Have Won
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
People who looked at the 2008 campaign and took as their main takeaway that there wasn't racial resentment being played up in the media all over the place are goddamn morons. In addition to Palin, you had the puma phenomenon, who were basically exactly the kind of suburban Bush republicans Schumer claimed the party needed to appeal to, threatening to vote McCain if the democrats nominated the black man. Here's the thing, the Pumas failed lamentably to affect the election and 08 was a landslide, because these are people who are registered dem but probably haven't voted dem since Clinton's first term. So why then and not now? Besides voter suppression in some states, what could have depressed working class turnouts in the midwest? Maybe look at the 2010 elections and you'll start understanding another part of the picture. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
News from Dem-land: Donna Brazile calls alleged Russian phishing of DNC emails "an act of war," and agrees with John McCain. She did this during a panel discussion on black women in politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Why don't we take this (inane, ridiculous) discussion a bit further and look at people who voted for Obama in 2008 but not 2012? It hasn't been examined or analyzed or polled nearly as deeply because no one really saw any mysteries in "extremely popular incumbent who won first election in huge landslide won in slightly smaller landslide", but Obama lost two states in 2012 that he'd won in 2008 (Indiana and North Carolina), and his margin of victory shrank massively in states like FL, PA, WI, and MI - the same four states in which Trump had the smallest margin of victory over Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Its very likely they were both disappointed with Obama and had higher levels of racial resentment. That's why immigration policy makes a lot of sense in explaining their voting behavior--Obama pushed comprehensive immigration reform heavily in his 2nd term and then did DACA and DAPA when it failed in the house. The only other policy that fits is trade, and that's a less satisfying explanation because Obama signed 3 free trade deals in 2011. For fucks sake, most people do not vote like this. They do not think "hm here is a list of things the President did, and policies X, Y, and Z disagree with my clearly articulated political views." I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of Americans didn't even know what DACA and DAPA are, given stuff like people not knowing Obamacare and the ACA are one and the same. People - particularly the sorts of likely low-info voters who tend to switch between political parties (which are the ones relevant to discussions of people switching from Obama to Trump) - are generally guided by a combination of a general vague sense of who a politician is (which is influenced by anything from that politician's appearance/mannerisms to the media that person consumes) and what people/media tell them about the politicians/policies (which may significantly differ from reality). I'm not saying that there weren't some voters who may have switched from Obama to Trump due to dissatisfaction with Obama's immigration policy, but you're oversimplifying things to the point of downright absurdity. Ideally some polling organization will actually poll people who voted Obama -> Trump (which I guess would have to be based on self-reporting), because that's the only way we can ever truly get a clear sense of why people did so. edit: I mean, I sympathize with what you're trying to do here, but I think it's okay to say "we really don't know" for the time being. I disagree for the same reason with the leftist people who keep claiming that Clinton losing was a clear referendum against neoliberalism or whatever. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
He's been trying to argue that DACA forced people to vote Trump for a while now. It's completely stupid. But it's also stupid to say neoliberalism had nothing to do with the election. Maybe the majority of Rust Belt voters don't know what neoliberalism is, but they know what NAFTA is. They know what globalization is. They may not know the ins-and-outs of Clinton-era deregulation, but they know that Wall Street was bailed out and they weren't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
The neoliberals won the election, so although neoliberalism was relevant it's not in the way most people insist it was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The neoliberals won the election, so although neoliberalism was relevant it's not in the way most people insist it was. They won by pretending to not be neoliberals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:They won by pretending to not be neoliberals. No, Gitlerite, they were explicit about their desire to reduce the welfare state and run things like a business.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, Gitlerite, they were explicit about their desire to reduce the welfare state and run things like a business. He also was explicit about protecting landmarks like SS and Medicare. Oh and he made noises about Mediare for all. Plus all the protectionism talk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:He also was explicit about protecting landmarks like SS and Medicare. Oh and he made noises about Mediare for all. Plus all the protectionism talk. Thanks for the eternal reminder that y'all don't know what neoliberalism is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Thanks for the eternal reminder that y'all don't know what neoliberalism is. Its about expanding mariets into all sectors of life. Trump pretended to not be for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Its about expanding mariets into all sectors of life. Trump pretended to not be for that. Dunno what "mariets" are but Trump was absolutely for running the government like a business you falangist twerp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Dunno what "mariets" are but Trump was absolutely for running the government like a business you falangist twerp. For those unfamiliar, when effectronica is unable to support whatever harebrained point he's trying to make, he switches to incoherent ad hominems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Dunno what "mariets" are but Trump was absolutely for running the government like a business you falangist twerp. Did he promise to gut welfare in the way previous republicans had and did he slavishly promote free trade?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:For those unfamiliar, when effectronica is unable to support whatever harebrained point he's trying to make, he switches to incoherent ad hominems. Wonder when effetronica asks if either of us still beat out girlfriends?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:For those unfamiliar, when effectronica is unable to support whatever harebrained point he's trying to make, he switches to incoherent ad hominems. So if I yelled "look out for that bus," would you immediately run out into the middle of the street while grunting "ad hominem! Ad hominem!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, Gitlerite, they were explicit about their desire to reduce the welfare state and run things like a business. Actually, Trump said he would "save" Medicare, Medicaid, and social security without cuts. He won in part because he convinced constituencies in the Rust Belt who rely on those programs that he would not cut them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
I really appreciate the commitment to discussion and an intellectual free-for-all displayed by the people who make posts like Dr. Fishopolis's and Crowsbeak's, and the people like Majorian and Ytlaya who beatifically smile and indulge them while later castigating their targets for returning fire. Truly, the Bernie wing are a colossus of thinking and of moral behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I really appreciate the commitment to discussion and an intellectual free-for-all displayed by the people who make posts like Dr. Fishopolis's and Crowsbeak's, and the people like Majorian and Ytlaya who beatifically smile and indulge them while later castigating their targets for returning fire. Awww, you want us to protect you from the scary socialists? Poor widdle Effectronica.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Actually, Trump said he would "save" Medicare, Medicaid, and social security without cuts. He won in part because he convinced constituencies in the Rust Belt who rely on those programs that he would not cut them. "Welfare state" does not solely refer to those three programs, Majorian. Furthermore, privatization of Social Security was sold as a way to save it back in the first W. term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I really appreciate the commitment to discussion and an intellectual free-for-all displayed by the people who make posts like Dr. Fishopolis's and Crowsbeak's, and the people like Majorian and Ytlaya who beatifically smile and indulge them while later castigating their targets for returning fire. Tldr version 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Awww, you want us to protect you from the scary socialists? Poor widdle Effectronica. Majorian, there's no need for you to lash out because I intimidated you with effortposts last night. You can simply accept that you're naturally ignorant and move on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:"Welfare state" does not solely refer to those three programs, Majorian. No, but they're easily the three biggest ones (and the ones that matter most to blue collar white workers in the Rust Belt), so~ Brainiac Five posted:Majorian, there's no need for you to lash out because I intimidated you with effortposts last night. You can simply accept that you're naturally ignorant and move on. Now now, lashing out is what you do, silly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I really appreciate the commitment to discussion and an intellectual free-for-all displayed by the people who make posts like Dr. Fishopolis's and Crowsbeak's, and the people like Majorian and Ytlaya who beatifically smile and indulge them while later castigating their targets for returning fire. Can you imagine writing and thinking the way this guy does lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, but they're easily the three biggest ones (and the ones that matter most to blue collar white workers in the Rust Belt), so~ If you mutilate my posts any further you can expect equal treatment. This doesn't actually address the point either, but if you accidentally engaged in conversation with me instead of smarming you'd undoubtedly injure yourself out of shame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:If you mutilate my posts any further you can expect equal treatment. You're going to mutilate me?  And I engaged your point just fine, thank you very much. Trump won in part by promising not to cut welfare programs. He duped voters, quelle surprise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're going to mutilate me? How dare you suggest that Trump was a better politician than THE MOST QUALIFIED WOMAN TO EVER RUN FOR ANY OFFICE
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm going to mutilate you!:aargh: The point of conversation was about whether Trump was a neoliberal or not. Unless you're enough of a credulous gently caress to believe in consensus reality, your post is irrelevant, you win nothing, good day sir, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:How dare you suggest that Trump was a better politician than THE MOST QUALIFIED WOMAN TO EVER RUN FOR ANY OFFICE Well, the Secret Service's responsibility for protecting family members of former Presidents means we won't have to suffer the crime against humanity that's your posting for too much longer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The point of conversation was about whether Trump was a neoliberal or not. Unless you're enough of a credulous gently caress to believe in consensus reality, your post is irrelevant, you win nothing, good day sir, etc. What Trump believes didn't really matter as far as the election was concerned, though. I believe that Trump is a neoliberal at heart because it allows him to enrich himself, but what he personally believes could not be less relevant. What matters is what he could convince people about his plans once elected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:04
|
|